No stretchers in streets - or consistency

Here is the essence of opposition to the Affordable Care Act, health reform widely known as Obamacare: It's an Orwellian overreach by the federal government to make purchase of a product, health insurance, compulsory.

U.S. Rep. Steve King goes so far as to refer to federal health reform as the "nationalization of our body and everything inside of it."

Agree or not, that's a straightforward ideology. No wiggling. No dodging.

But there is another side of the coin.

If, as the Tea Party suggests, it is downright Soviet - or even a "felony" "criminal act," according to Texas Gov. Rick Perry - to mandate that adult Americans purchase health-insurance plans, then why is it OK that existing law forces hospitals to provide emergency-room care for people who don't have insurance or the money to pay for services rendered?

It's wrong for government to make you buy something but fine for Washington to mandate a professional to serve you, and prescribe fines and allow for civil actions if he or she doesn't?

The latter is exactly what the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act does.

What's the difference, on principle, between that 1986 law and Obamacare from the conservative perspective?

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Service, requires critical access and Medicare-participating hospitals to screen and stabilize people regardless of whether or not they are beneficiaries of any program under the act - or in spite of a lack of insurance.

To be consistent shouldn't King be equally as upset about the emergency-treatment mandate - also known as the anti-patient-dumping statute?

Most reasonable members of Congress agree that the United States should be compassionate at the emergency-room door, that nurses should look to stop bleeding, that doctors should quickly examine patients with trauma, before some hospital clerk goes shuffling through a wallet or an orderly purse-dives for proof of insurance.

The difference: Obamacare asks people to pay up front for the services by having insurance - just as the State of Iowa mandates all drivers have a minimum level of auto insurance.

For that he's Khrushchev?

King and his brand of conservatives, on the other hand, want a federal government safety net, without the Obama pre-pay plan, for Americans who are irresponsible with their affairs, who don't buy health insurance because they know when the going gets really bad, alleged True Believing Capitalists like Congressman King don't have the stomachs for a real-deal system of winners and losers.

"I think that you can't turn people away when they're brought into the emergency room and need help," King said in an interview. "I don't think anybody would say, 'Send them out and put them on a stretcher on the street.'"

So mandate the service, but let people off the hook on paying? That's conservative? That's capitalism?

Poor analogy to car insurance, first you don't have to buy car insurance, if you have the money you can post a bond and self-insure.

When the President said if you like your plan you can keep it, he did not tell the truth, the truth is you can keep your health insurance only if the federal bureaucrats like it. For example, the system does not allow for a high deductible plan which might be preferred by wealthy, healthy people.

People who want to live their faith and conscience cannot opt out of abortion services.

This reduction in consumer choice and federal power grab will in the long run harm this country. This is truly a philosophical battle between those who liked the old Soviet system (they just believe that the "right" people were not in charge). We need market principles to make the consumer choice allocations in the long run.

Unfortunately the message will always be countered with emotional appeals, like the idea that emergency care should be denied to a needy person. I do have a Christian obligation to help others with ordinary care.

I do not have an obligation to fund heart/lung transplants for those who have made bad choices by smoking, doing drugs, not exercising, overeating or the other lifestyle induced health problems.

But the leftists don't want to have market forces come to bear on those who make poor choices, just roll out the emotional appeal and mandate universal participation. The problem is that in the long run, the greater good is not served. Markets enhance the ability of millions of consumers to make many choices, some great - some not so much. So long as the costs of those choices fall on the participants, the market will shift, roll, change and adapt.

I do not believe that a federal committee in Washington should have such power. Nobody is that smart or that good - if we had such people the Soviet Union would be the dominant model, not a market based free enterprise model.

If government run health care is so great, whey do those private jets from around the world fly into Rochester Minnesota rather than Havana Cuba?

There is still time to fix this.This comment has been hidden due to low approval.

No, it's not like car insurance. We don't force people to purchase car insurance even if they don't plan on owning a car or driving. But the healthcare law does force people to purchase health insurance even if they don't plan on using medical services. If thats the case I want to see everyone forced to buy car insurance or face a tax penalty. And set the prices according to age, then offer subsidies acording to income.This comment has been hidden due to low approval.